Work in progess and Previews

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

i think units using that kind of swords would have sprinted between pikemen and attacking an already halted horse attack, otherwise i can not imagine......

 

[T-mun]

I can only confirm "ma" (if pronounced well) means "horse" in Chinese. I've studied the basics of that language long time ago and don't remember much... if pronounced differently it means "mother" (4 pronounciations = 4 different meanings).

 

[ShiroKobbure]

In Chinese long swords are called "斬馬刀" cutting斬 horse馬 sword刀
it is mentioned in a Song dynasty war manual.

In Japan there are various swords called 大太刀 Odachi literally big/great sword, and the 長巻 nagamaki, a spear like sword.
From what I read the Odachi was used on horse back, and the nagamaki was used by infantry to attack horses legs. Both the the Odachi and the Nagamaki have sections in their Japanese wiki page about being used to attack cavalry.

I can't find much information on them, but from what I've been reading much of it might have been more just for intimidation. And there would not be full units of them

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

theoretically these units are falx armed units, but we only have one falxman around and that is dacian, nothing medieval....the gascogne people were famous for their falxes, also other people who inherited roman traditions....italians, walachians, greeks, etc....i think even in islamic armies one might find this weapon. if could prove interesting if someone could make some units in this direction, only for flavour....

 

[ShiroKobbure]

But a falx has the blade on the inside of the curve right? So these swords would not be a falx.
Utah did make a Dacian falx unit with the blade on the outside of the curve. And the Chinese 斬馬刀 zhanmadao term would apply to both a odachi type and a nagamaki type. Here is a picture from the Ming.

If you are interested in a Dacian falx unit, I am planning to make one when I get around to the Eastern Europe pack. Otherwise wait for when I am taking requests for my grab bag pack.

btw how about a unit with this

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

no worry, i am waiting. the thing i have discovered reading about weaponry is that generally people stick to their own culture and especially militay traditions, so only if major changes or foreign leadership or invasions take place there comes the wind of change. so for example you can find a gladius worn by a walachian nobleman in the 1360', or large shields carried by breton soldiers around 1200 (very large shields - not pavises but pikeman shields...very interesting), and so on and so on...so people generally change hard their habits. i wonder if the nodachi was imported due to the mongol wars ...

 

[ShiroKobbure]

It is one reason why I don't believe in the idea that Japan was conquered by horseman from Asia (not the only reason) But the Japanese bow is from the late Jomon period. Japan never adopted the Asian short bow. Even on horseback the Japanese warriors used the native longbow.
Its possible that the Mongol invasions had an effect on Japanese warfare. Before that time Japanese troops hadn't fought a foreign army in about 600 years. The naginata was used to dismount horseman, and I believe it is from the Gempei war 1180–1185. about 80 years before the Mongol invasion.
But it does seem that Ashigaru (low level samurai) almost always have Naginatas or Nagamaki in scrolls fighting the Mongols. When later the Yari-pike would be the main weapon of Ashigaru.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

i haven't read much about this period (money shortage), i hope i will read some day more...

also a question what means to dismount a horseman, what kind of horseman are you talking about - and why would horesemen come near an infantry formation????

 

[ShiroKobbure]

this is not the phalanx fighting of ancient Greece. Especially in the early medieval periods formations could be extremely loose. Don't think of a wall of men with naginatas and a horseman charging in to disperse them. And also many units were often a mix of horse and infantry.

Horsemen in the early medieval period usually had a bow, after shooting all their arrows or whenever necessary they also had a tachi, a longer more curved style of Japanese sword similar to the katana. Some men may also had spears. But Japan never really developed a cataphract cavalry.
And by dismount I mean knock off, or attack the rider.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

If I remember my reading correctly Shiro didn't the samurai march in close formation into battle at one point, around the same time as one of the wars with Korea.

I read that the formations of the samurai were exploited during a few battles with Korean forces, who used fireworks of all things against them.

 

[ShiroKobbure]

During the wars of the sengoku, 16th century, warfare changed and ashigaru formed tighter formations of pikes and gun walls. At the peak of this period Japan invaded Korea.

I know that the Mongols used firework bombs to scare the Japanese. In Shogun Total War these units are Korean auxiliary.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

so what shiro said (close infantry formation) seems great fear of cavalry attack.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

During the wars of the sengoku, 16th century, warfare changed and ashigaru formed tighter formations of pikes and gun walls. At the peak of this period Japan invaded Korea.

I know that the Mongols used firework bombs to scare the Japanese. In Shogun Total War these units are Korean auxiliary.

So the fireworks was more of a psychological weapon I take it.

A friend told me this once, he said that Japanese craftsmenship made japanese swords far superior and resistant to breaking than European swords. I think its interesting because I don't think there was ever a large amount of plate armor in medival Japan, and you had other kinds of armor in place of it.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

as much as i read till now (only a very liittle few), is that japanese warriors did not clash the cutting edge of the sword, but the back or the lateral, in a fight

 

[ShiroKobbure]

as much as i read till now (only a very liittle few), is that japanese warriors did not clash the cutting edge of the sword, but the back or the lateral, in a fight

Yes but watch a kendo match or an iaido performance. Sometimes you block with the cutting part often at an angle for the oppenet's blade to slide off. But this is just in the formal performance, in the heat of battle it might be quite different.

Here are some kendo katas
and
Kendo matches
Although since I did iaido more, I sometimes feel kendo's moves are more for scoring points.



As for Japanese armor, in the early days Japanese wore solid iron plates, and during this time the sword was very simple. Later it was a mix of leather and iron. And during the 16th century became heavily influenced by Europe.
I do believe the Japanese sword of the middle ages was superior to any other country, the folding process matched with Japan's spongy iron. And there were several techniques in differential hardening, such as making the cutting part of the blade extremely hard and sharp, but making the rest of the sword softer. This way the sword could bend absorbing a hit. The blade might chip (which is why direct blocking is not done as much) but the sword wouldn't break in half.
But this is just my opinion, other people might like other swords... and I don't want to turn the thread into which sword is best.

You might find this video interesting. A Japanese sword versus a bullet. The TV program later did another test with a Japanese sword against a .50 machine gun ... the sword was able cut several of them but was no match in the end.

 

[Quinzy]

Bear in mind the propaganda surrounding European and Asian weapons. The quality of iron in Japan was inferior to much of the rest of the old world. Therefore the folding technique maximised sharpness at the expense of brittleness to the cutting edge, as Shirou said.

There has been recent scholarly work towards re-examining European swords, with the consensus that they were all bashing swords quickly replaced with a new look to European martial arts, quality of swords and swordmaking, and sword function. European swords were less sharp, but more multi-functional to some extent. 16th century full plate would outmatch a 16th century katana; compared to a 16th century European sword to full plate armour.

It's less an issue of superiority outright, and more an issue of what was needed to fight your enemies.

 

[Sword_Of_Geddon]

There was a big change during the 1600s-1700s in terms of European swords and how they were used. You went from swords requiring strength and swinging power to use to the finesse and grace of the rapier.

I've known for awile that Japanese swords were built to last, but I never knew they could withstand a bullet.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

well, if i am not mistaken the rapier is even earlier towards 1500.

 

[Quinzy]

An I'm talking just about hacking and slashing swords, rather than thrusting swords. You still require finesse to weild a longsword properly and effectively. And, as I said, I was refering to the 16th century.

 

[Jerry'sGoldfish]

the rapier was invented to stab through chain mail or even better through the varieties of soft armour that would appear in the 16 century. also it could be used from horseback or for long distance against pikemen. (i have a replica - but works best with a dagger)